Judge: All right. We are back on the record on JU 880——After doing an
in-camera review of the records with counsel and the parents and the
guardian ad litem, the counsel for the parents, Mr. Kirby, made some notes
here that I guess Mr. Hamlin reviewed these notes…
Mr. Kirby: No, I don’t think I did. I didn’t look at their personal notes. I
marked the records that I thought we needed and some of them are
multiple page records with just a notation on the first page…of the
counseling records. I marked those as one thing that we needed but
——-all those nine pages.
Judge: Okay. All right.
Mr. Kirby: Are we on the record?
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: One thing that I did not see in there and I would like to know
where it is is the affidavit that was used for the pickup order. It’s not of
record in the court filing and it’s not in there. That’s the reason I’m not so
sure that that’s a complete DHR record.
(Thank you Kirby…This is just right. There was NO sworn affidavit in
order to be able to get a pick up order to steal our child. Thanks for
pointing that out.
Pick up order reads, “Based upon a SWORN STATEMENT presented to
the juvenile court that the above named child needs to be placed in
detention or shelter or other care, the court finds the following:
So, here is the ultimate truth…..there was NEVER A SWORN statement
under the penalty of perjury written by anyone that this statement above
was the TRUTH….and HOW can it be truth when we were two capable,
loving parents right there, right then caring for OUR child when he was
stolen??? This “pick up order” was “signed” more than likely with a
stamp by the judge AFTER court hours, AFTER they took our child
without a sworn statement SWORN TO by ANYONE who was actually
present in our presence…. The petition full of FALSE ACCUSATIONS was
submitted and signed and NOT SWORN TO AFTER the pick up order was
issued and was signed by SOMEONE WE HAD NEVER MET. The petition
was put in based on hearsay and without validation AFTER they
The Sheriff, child’s crime detective who was there that night, who actually
removed the child from Danielle’s breast while feeding, (and who later
stated on the stand she never touched the baby), admitted on the stand
there was NO EMERGENCY. So, how can the judge give the OKAY to sign
a pick up order WITHOUT a sworn statement showing an actual
emergency!!? And the “emergency” this judge is claiming is that a
newborn child has NO PARENT TO CARE FOR HIM, which is
Judge: Can you tell the affidavit that’s used?
Mr. Kirby: On the juvenile pickup order it said the sworn statement or
affidavit was submitted I guess kinda like a search warrant. You know, a
police officer has to swear or have an affidavit saying why he needs the
search warrant…
Christian: Evidence and facts.
Mr. Kirby: That was one of the things that was on the juvenile pickup
order that was checked that said there was a sworn statement or affidavit
made….to get the juvenile pickup order.
Judge: And I may be able to answer that question. Generally what I have
done in the standard pattern and practice is when there is an emergency
situation or deemed to be an emergency situation for a pickup order,
Judge: …what the department has done is sent a caseworker up here, I put
them under oath in front of me and have them tell me what is the situation
that gives rise to the emergency that would denote a pickup order as
opposed to a summary removal.
(Every single day that we have protested with signs on Ross Street, outside
of the courthouse, the judge NEVER stays past 5pm. She is out the door
between 4:30-5:00 pm….this “emergency pick up order” was “signed”
(we think stamped by someone else), at 5:20pm AFTER they had already
kidnapped him from our hospital room at 4:30pm. The pick up order was
then filed into the court system at 5:24, WITHOUT A SWORN
AFFIDAVIT…..and if this is true, Mrs. Walker, where is the RECORDING
There isn’t one! Probably because NO ONE SWORE UNDER OATH OR
Mr. Kirby: Who would that person have been?
Judge: I believe Stacey Jackson without me looking back…
(Oh, so why do you think that Mrs. Walker?? Because it would HAVE TO
BE STACY JACKSON, RIGHT? Yes, it would have HAD to be Stacy
Jackson because you CANNOT LEGALLY have a sworn statement via
TRUTH…..Stacy Jackson was at the hospital with us at that time, it was
impossible for her to be at the courthouse at the same time!! And Stacy
Jackson was the one claiming all of the false accusations in order to even
Mr. Schlenker: I think it was Carrie Pollard.
(Good one, Schlenker….reminding the judge that IF this were true, in
order to go along with their illegal process, being that Carrie Pollard was
the one who signed the petition and filed it into court WITHOUT A
have been the one to give a sworn statement to the judge right???)
Judge: May have been Carrie Pollard.
(Oh, so now you are saying maybe it was Carrie Pollard? Which one was
it Mrs. Walker? The one who actually MADE the false claims and was still
at the hospital with us at the same time the order was signed AFTER they
took our baby, OR the one who never met us and actually signed off on the
false claims without knowing the truth and filing in a petition of
hearsay??? You Don’t remember which one?)
****(All these legal little technicalities. They don’t matter, unless of
course they are being brought up for state’s defense. Then, that is ALL that
Judge: You want to do the records thing first and then let’s do that?
(Want to change the subject now, eh?
******Take Notice, this was NEVER brought up again!!!! Judge did a
great job yet again at diverting the entire topic because THIS IS ILLEGAL
HERE……But, NO…..yet again we have been diverted….)
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
(Yes, Kirby, because you care more about your bar license than our baby
and innocent family.)
Judge: In reviewing these records, there are several things…as a matter-offact,
the multitude of these records are things that would have been
available readily to the family, I say family, parents, individually or
collectively. In particular, a lot of them seem to be records that may or
may not have been generated by Mr. Holm or the counseling
notes…Savannah counseling notes are certainly his records and he could
get them. There are a few, and you have made notes here Mr. Kirby on
these it looks like, the narrative of the department and things like that, and
I do think that that is something that should be turned over to the parents
and counsel. However, with that, these are confidential records not for
facebook, not for friends, confidential. And I don’t know that I can make it
any clearer that that. And Mr. Kirby, what our standard practice has been is
that we give the records, we being loosely my order says DHR give it to
the lawyer to give it to court for clients, and that’s where I would like to go
with this, and that we keep the standard practice and pattern especially
now that you are co-counsel.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. But, your honor, obviously the Holms don’t want
to continue this case but I think there’s important records in there.
(And it’s not all of them!! Where are our NEGATIVE DRUG TEST
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: We reviewed them but we didn’t have a chance to examine
them thoroughly, and I don’t want to delay this action any further. So, I’m
not quite sure what we do about that. They should have been…those
records by the admission of court some of those should have been
produced to us, especially I guess when I requested them in the court, and
maybe I can address that in my motion in———————because I think
I asked for any and all records that the state didn’t produce to not allow
any testimony concerning that or be used.
Judge: So are you arguing your next motion?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I’m just saying we can get to it in the motion in limine
but that’s what————————I mean, in my opinion they couldn’t do
Judge: I’m going to give these to you because they have a lot of your notes
on them rather than me holding them up here and looking at them.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. Thank you. But…it’s just like with any defense or
any motion if you are at any trial the others side withholds records from
you that you need to get, you can’t…you can’t build the strongest defense I
guess you can’t possibly build.
Judge: So you are at this point, just very clear, the motion to alter is
denied. You have the records now.
(No, judge…actually we don’t!! Where are our NEGATIVE DRUG TEST
RESULTS? Where are the narratives of when they spoke with Christian’s
family members soliciting information from them about Christian without
his consent? Where are those narratives? Not everything is there! )
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Okay. Just getting it clear in my mind. So, the next motion that I
have is the motion to produce evidence of service.
(Wait, what about the subject of the illegal pick up order you supposedly
signed to kidnap our child?? You diverted that topic and said we were
going back to it after the DHR records were discussed. Why are we now
continuing on? This case should be dismissed.)
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: If I don’t go and checklist it down I will forget where I’m from. So,
Mr. Kirby, are you arguing that motion?
(You know that, because you are purposely forgetting your illegal pick up
order. )
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: I did not set it for hearing. That was my mistake, but we’re here.
The department had notice of that. It was filed the 9th. Is there any
objection the court move on it and let’s go ahead and take care of that
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, let me look at this one. No ma’am.
Judge: All right, Mr. Kirby. Go ahead, and Mr. and Mrs. Holm, whoever.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, you want me to argue this motion? Okay. Judge, with
our motion to have DHR to produce all evidence of service on the
Holms, the Holms were not notified, they weren’t given their records,
they weren’t notified of court filings, especially subpoenas that went
out to Savannah Counseling,they weren’t notified of any motions filed
by the department…
Judge: Okay, what time frame are you talking about?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I don’t think they have received any motions. The
only thing they have received is starting with your order that
addressed the ex parte filing of DHR caseworkers…I mean…they’ve
received orders since then but they haven’t received any motions.
****(Court appointed attorneys get paid by the state. Who do you think
they will represent?)
Judge: Okay, and you’re talking about…
Mr. Kirby: To December 5th…
Judge: Okay, let me go back and look.
Mr. Kirby: And if I’m correct, that’s November 15th.
Judge: All right, so up until what point, let’s see…up until November 3rd
they had counsel.
Mr. Kirby: They had counsel. Yes.
Judge: And if counsel Goddard didn’t get motions to them, that’s between
them and counsel is my theory on that.
****(But we have already seen that DHR is not willing to play by the
standard rules and there is no guarantee that any motions were given to
counsel or that counsel acted upon any of them properly.)
Mr. Kirby: I understand that.
Judge: Are they saying they didn’t get things from Ms. Wilkinson and Ms.
Christian: That’s correct.
Judge: And when they terminated their counsel did they come in and make
a change with the court system as far as their address?
Mr. Kirby: Evidently there was a change made to P.O. Box 243? 438, I’m
sorry, and—————– because they started receiving the court’s orders at
that time, but they did not receive any motions, subpoenas or anything else
from the state.
Judge: Okay. Let me see when the change was made here. Notice of Intent
by non party subpoena was filed by Jennifer Argo. That was in November
before she withdrew. Uh…it says 11-15, HIPAA order issue copy mailed to
attorneys of record, copy mailed to Danielle and Christian Holm,
————–on—————–. Now whether or not the clerk’s office had
their correct address… I cannot tell what would be the correct address on
here, and if Mr. and Mrs. Holm did not come up here after they relieved
counsel, and again I understand they are uneducated of the law. But I am
trying to see what else is here. What other motions? And it may
be…uh…there was a motion for a restraining order copy emailed to
attorney of record e-mailed to copy to Cleburne County DHR, copy
mailed to Christian and Danielle Holm. So, it appears that the clerk was
sending it out and I’m not seeing where anything was returned…
(Why is Mrs. Judge trying so hard to justify us not getting any mail from
Mr. Kirby: Yeah, but what address was the clerk sending it to because I
have a juvenile pickup order here that it was supposed to have been served
on Danielle and Christian Holm? Address is Cheaha State Park and I
believe the clerk would…
(We were never served with a pick up order, NOR the accusations against
us. We did not know what we were being accused of until we were already
sitting in the courtroom. We had no opportunity to rebut any claims. And
our address was NEVER Cheaha State Park.)
(female voice): And judge, if I can interject. I was looking back at the
petition and that;s actually was where their address was listed, so…
(We never gave anyone that address, because it was not our address.)
Judge: And counsel was appointed at shelter care.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, if you’ll notice too, there was no service of the petition
on the Holms.
(Yes, Kirby. That is correct.)
Judge: The Holms? Okay, it’s my understanding that this is the procedure
in juvenile dependency, and correct me if I am wrong with your
understanding, once a parent makes appearance they are deemed served
whether it is shelter care, adjudication, whatever phase of the proceeding,
and personal service is not needed after that fact.
****( So, what happens when the parents don’t even know and have never
been served? Too bad for them? Is that not why we have a court system
providing that protection called “notice of service”? Apparently in
juvenile court this is just ONE more thing that does not exist to protect
parental rights. Is this legal? I think not.)
(Right, and we have the proof we were never served with our accusations.
We have a ripped up piece of notebook paper and written on it by Stacy
Jackson who was at the hospital and had a hand in kidnapping our
child….she wrote down the court date, and time and her phone number.
Why would she write on that if we were served with anything?? So, “We
are kidnapping your child illegally. You better be at court, and you have
no idea why, to be able to prepare effectively, and you will not be served”)
Judge: Mr. and Mrs. Holm were here at the shelter care. They were
represented by counsel. They testified. Copies of the petition are
historically given to counsel of record at that time, and I would have no
reason to believe that Ms. Argo and Ms. Wilkinson did not have the copy
of the petition to go over with their respective clients at that time.
****(Nice. But where is the proof of all of those statements. That is why
we call it PROOF of service.)
(And NO, we were NOT given this petition NOR the pick up order which
states our baby who we JUST GAVE BIRTH TO does NOT HAVE ANY
Mr. Kirby: Well at the shelter care hearing with my understanding
was there was no petition available.
****(And apparently none in the court record either.)
Mr. Kirby: That’s my understanding. Now, I was not here. The only thing I
think the Holms said that was available to their counsel at the time was the
pickup order.
Judge: Uh…I don’t see…the Petition was dated 10-11 it looks like? 10-11
final report, 10-11..Petition was dated. I would have no reason to….and
again it is the standard pattern and practice that copies of the petition are
made and given to counsel of record, and if you’ve not talked to Ms. Argo
and Ms. Wilkinson about that….and I need you to tell me where are you
going with this motion? What do you need from me?
****(Justice for the maligned parents who are being railroaded by a
system which can’t even follow its own laws in this case.)
(Judge, what do we need from you?? Common sense! Truth!
Accountability! Justice!! OUR BABY!!)
Mr. Kirby: I’m saying that…it’s like this. The motion for order to
compel the parents to cooperate with the Cleburne County DHR–
there is no service to the parents on there. The only people that were
served with it were Tony Hamlin, Carrie Pollard (she is a case worker
we had never met at that time!!) who is listed as a pro se litigant in
this matter, and Allison Miller.
****(Yet the state puts several representatives on the Holm’s facebook
page in the early days to repeatedly reprimand the parents refusal to
comply with the state. No one, especially the Holms, had a clue what they
were referring to, yet court personnel all appear supremely confident in
their judgments. This is early proof of leaking classified courtroom
material to the public and withholding key information to the Holms who
actually had a right to have it.)
(Apparently DHR repeatedly put in motions to COMPEL US TO
COOPERATE. We were not aware of these motions. Were never told to do
anything to cooperate….and then in court after not serving us with these
motions, they then said we haven’t been cooperating. The judge denied
these motions trying to force us to cooperate….so we have never been in
contempt of ever cooperating.)
Mr. Kirby: Uh…there’s a subpoena request …
Judge: That motion was ————to last year.
Mr. Kirby: Uh, huh. I understand that.
Judge: Why wasn’t this issue raised then?
Mr. Kirby: There is a notice of intent to serve a subpoena on Savannah
Counseling filed by the department on 15th of November, notice of service
to Allison Miller and Tony Hamlin. No service on the parents.
(Because they did not want that to be known by us for us to then OBJECT
TO IT….Because we WOULD have. And we WOULD HAVE revoked their
permissions at that point)
Judge: And just for the record, when those are pushed through the court
system, I don’t even look at them, just no action so I would not have
looked at that.
****(But you are now. What do you think should be done about it?)
Mr. Kirby: Okay, but what do we do about the parents not having an
opportunity to quash that subpoena? I mean, if they would have
received notice of the motion then they could at least file a motion to
Judge: I understand.
(Do you? Or do you just not care?)
Mr. Kirby: Here again, let’s see that’s the HIPAA order. It shows state
park, Cheaha State Park. There was a motion by the state, course it’s
been denied, but there was a motion by the state to appoint a guardian
ad litem for the parents, said notice date 11-17, and by 11-17 the
clerk’s office was aware of where to mail anything for the parents…
****(Guardian for the parents? This is not talking about one for the child.
They are really pulling out the stops to win this case, now aren’t they?)
(Yes, the way Kirby got into our case, was apparently, when our hearing
started on December 5th, the state was trying to appoint a guardian for
us, because they believed we could not handle our own affairs. Kirby met
with us that morning and determined we did not need a guardian. He told
the judge, and the judge appointed him as standby counsel instead. Once
you have any type of counsel you deem yourself incapable of handling
your affairs, so of course they want to push a guardian or an attorney on
to drag you through their fraud.)
Judge: So they would have mailed an order but not necessarily a motion
because it is not the clerk’s responsibility to mail them out…
Mr. Kirby: The parents haven’t been served with the motions as
attested to on the state’s…on the motions. Uh, now down at the bottom
at the ———–certificate of service, I mean it is standard practice
pretty much for all attorneys to notify who has been served with the
motions. The parents were due the motions, the state said they served
the motions. I wanted them to bring proof in here that they served
motions on these parents and how they tried to serve them. Did they
try to serve them by mail and if it was returned? If so, I can
understand that. If not, I don’t? If they didn’t try to serve them at all
and they are attesting to the fact that they served it on all parties pro
se of the attorneys of record.
****(So the state lies. What happens when there is proof? Here is proof
now. What will happen to the state for lying and acting in collusion
against these parents?)
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
****(Her voice on the audio sounds like a movie. Did she mean to sound
that worried?)
(She is hoping Schlenker has a really good answer for this one)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, the in-controverted testimony in this trial so far is
that the Holms have not provided an address to the department, the GAL,
or to the court even. The address that the court’s office is using is really
generated by random by one of their 34 page filings where it happens to
THAT WE CHECK DAILY) . There is no idea about the department to this
date where they are at (BUT YOU JUST STATED YOU KNOW OUR
MAILING ADDRESS). The last address that we have for them comes on
November 3, 2016, in a filing by their attorneys when they were
withdrawing of 1000 No. Vilon Hwy. #252, Tucson, Arizona, 85541 (Yes,
you are correct and we still get mail from there as well!! We have it
forwarded every 2 weeks!).
That is their address. They have not updated anyone else with that. We do
not know where they live (Again, you have our mailing address). They
have refused to tell us that. They have refused on the witness stand to tell
us that. They have unclean hands to come in here and argue that they have
been denied an opportunity to notice when they have denied themselves
the opportunity to be notified of anything. Again, the only address the
department has currently for them would be 1000 No. Vilon Hwy. So that’s
it. We don’t know that P.O. Box address is correct. We don’t know what is
correct. (And we STILL get mail from Arizona and we have NEVER
received anything from DHR at that address)
****(Notice how this is done. Sliding away from the perjury issue, he
makes a non issue into something that is the Holm’s fault. Proof of service
is done, as Mr. Kirby mentioned, by registered mail at the post office when
someone has a P.O. Box. Standard practice, but watch how Mr. Schlenker
slinks away from the culpability of the state and refocuses the court onto a
non issue since the parents are obviously sitting in every court session.
Failure to provide their exact location at all times is vital for the Holms in
their attempt to survive this hostile group whose intent remains on their
personal demise. Just because this comes from the state does not render
them less dangerous, rather they are more so.
Unclean hands, eh? So, maybe since the Holms have been remanded to
remain in the state you might consider the local P.O. Box more correct
than Arizona? Maybe? But that doesn’t get you out of Proof of service
requirements, Mr. Clean.)
Mr. Schlenker: We don’t know…well one rumor has them living in
Georgia. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know how to get in
touch with them. We have a phone number…
****(Maybe you might attempt a call.)
(And they will never be told where we live, so that we are able to sleep at
night!! Does anyone know of Nancy Schaeffer and her murder inside of
her home??? And Georgia?? Where Christian grew up his entire life??
No, we do not live there either. Nice try though.)
Mr. Schlenker: …that occasionally they will answer but that is not good
enough for service of process. So, as far as my motions have been done,
they’ve been filed at 1000 No. Vilon Hwy. Cause again, in the file that is
the last address of any document of any one of record for the parents.
****(You, sir, have only made sure they could purposely not have received
notice of anything. We are not fooled.)
(LIES, LIES, LIES!!!!! We STILL get ALL of our mail from this same
address and have the entire time. We have a very good standing
relationship with the manager there, as it is a forwarding service, and they
forward our mail every 2-3 weeks. It is now April and we have received all
mail over the last 6 months and not ONE THING from the state of
Judge: Okay, and that address was gleaned from the motion to withdraw
by counsel November 3.
Mr. Schlenker: Correct. It was November 3rd.
Judge: That is the way you are supposed to do, was to withdraw.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, it is also the address that the mother had used in her
medical records when she went to the hospital. So, apparently it is an
address that they have used on multiple occasions.
(And we still sometimes use it!! We have a few different addresses we use
to get mail, and so still if they were to mail something there NOW, we
would get it…They have NEVER mailed anything there!)
Judge: So, we came in. We argued these motions that Mr. Kirby says my
clients didn’t get State has a valid point. We sent it to this address right
here, which I do remember very clearly. Of course, Mrs. Holm hasn’t
testified yet but Mr. Holm saying I’m not giving him where I live.
****(But they did provide P.O. Box. Did you forget?)
(2 things going on here…Judge painting a picture yet again, that we are
deficient with our information giving the state the OUT they need out of
this topic and secondly, the judge is now trying to put on guilt of us not
sharing our PHYSICAL address with criminals.)
Judge: Nonetheless, with all that we are now to the point of these recent
motions which would be the motion to alter —————. Did you receive
Mr. Kirby: I did receive that and I passed that on to the Holms.
Judge: Okay. So since then is there a motion ———–or pending in the inbetween
that we don’t know for sure about notice? Because I think I just
went through and cleared up everything with the exception of the 18 page
document Mr. and Mrs. Holm filed and I wanted to make sure that that
wasn’t a motion that they argued. So, my understanding was that
everything had been taken care of.
Mr. Kirby: Right. I mean the motions have been addressed. You know,
I guess my question, your honor, is if clerk’s office can get a good
address for the Holms then why can’t the state? And they put on their
certificate of service they served them but they didn’t put where they
tried to serve them.
****(Because they didn’t)
(They absolutely never served us. The COURT has had our P.O. Box here
locally the entire time, that we were forced to get. And our Arizona
address is STILL valid and we still receive this mail.)
Mr. Kirby: All it is, is that it says a generic I’ve serve this on counsel
of record and all parties pro se. Just like on the Holm’s certificate of
service to the state, it notices both Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Schlenker and
Allison Miller. That way, if there is a question about address then we
know that there is an issue. When you generically certify that you
served all of this stuff on any party you are opening yourself up to
this. I guess most importantly what we would argue would be the
notice of intent, the 15 day notice of intent of the subpoena to
Savannah Counseling. For them to receive no notice, but by that time
the court already had their P.O. Box 438 written down. That’s a good
address. The Holms have been receiving orders from there but they’ve
not been receiving motions.
Judge: But by the same token, did the Holms give an updated, even a P.O.
Box to the department?
Mr. Kirby: Well, they must have because the court picked it up.
Judge: I think the court picked it up from something that was mailed.
Mr. Kirby: Okay well if the clerk picked it up then the state should be
able to pick it up.
****(But not if they don’t want to.)
(The answer here is YES< the state has our mailing address, they just fail
to use it.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would ask from them that they submit proof that
they provided to the court or to a department or to the GAL a dated
address, not on some random thing that they send into the courtroom that
might be just a returned email, but a return address that is not stating this
is our mailing address, because again, that is what my contention is. They
have not told anyone where they were living. We have no mailing address
for them other than ———————supposition and that’s not good
****(Take note of this. Whenever you inform ANY government agency
anything get a receipt, name, date, and time with the person you gave it to,
photocopy the act, do everything to prevent them from saying it DIDN’T
HAPPEN. Because the record of your action will disappear and you will
need proof.)
Judge: Okay, at this point it is my understanding the parents ———–P.O.
Box 438. Is that the correct box?
Christian: Yes ma’am.
Judge: And what is the zip code?
Mr. Kirby: 32678. Uh, your honor. I’d like to ask Mr. Schlenker a question.
Did either you or Mr. Hamlin get the notice of the civil suit by the Holms?
Either a first or second notice? You’ve seen that, haven’t you?
Judge: That they actually filed suit or are you talking about…
Mr. Kirby: No, no, no, no. It was a notice that the Holms sent out to
government agencies that had their address at the top of it.
Judge: Without this being a discussion…is this what you are talking about?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, right here. Were you given this?
Mr. Schlenker: Actually, no.
Mr. Kirby: You seen that. What’s the address at the top?
Judge: He…he’s not under…
Mr. Kirby: I know. He’s not under..I understand. I’m sorry. But their
address is at the very top of that.
****(You almost got them Mr. Kirby, but when the judge and prosecutor
work together so tight she is going to protect him. Grrr!)
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: If you say that you mailed something then you ought to have
proof that you mailed it.
Christian: We have ours.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, you put it in an envelope, you mail it. I mean…the
proof is the certificate of service. I hereby certify that I have done this.
****(Don’t worry, Mr. Schlenker. She isn’t going to let anything happen to
you or your case.)
Judge: Well, and I guess the bottom line is, and I certainly don’t know that
this is going to be the contention of the department. They, Mr. and Mrs.
Holm could possibly have someone living in Arizona pickup their P.O.
Box. I don’t know what…
Mr. Kirby: It is forwarded.
Judge: Forwarded, okay. So, if it’s forwarded from Arizona to here and
they are saying they still didn’t get it, and at this point I understand your
aggravation———-. I would agree with you. Because it appears that
there was some motions filed that Mrs. Holm did not get a notice of. With
the exception of that 15 day non parte that they could have objected to,
everything…. that is the crux of the issue. One of them…
Mr. Kirby: Yes. That mainly…you know…of course if you filed something
and you say you served it, I want you to amend you served everybody…
Judge: Well,they…if the department is saying we sent it to this Arizona
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
****(We know they would never lie, right? Even though they have no
proof and by law are supposed to, right? Everybody just go play nice
Judge: And Mrs. Holm is saying there is a forward on that, then at this
point I’m gonna assume the department is asserting correctly they mailed
it. But at this point they are…I saw Mr. Schlenker taken a note so I’m
assuming you changed your address and put it in the file.
(There was NOTHING TO CHANGE, because they already KNEW our
LOCAL, ALabama PO Box. DHR mailed us a letter to that address!! And,
again, where is the mail you supposedly mailed to Arizona!! All the rest of
our mail from the last 6 months that got mailed to Arizona is sitting right
Mr. Schlenker: Yes’m. I have their address now and obviously now that
Mr. Kirby is there that will assure an attorney of record on their side is
served with everything…
Judge: Yes. Yes. That pretty much has cured itself…
(No, it has NOT!! Because the problem that STILL remains, is that DHR
ON PURPOSE did not SERVE us with the opportunity to REBUT their
RIGHTS…..WE were not notified they were going to SUBPEONA
RECORDS, so we could NOT OBJECT!!)
****(Take a note: Lessons on how the state gets around those non-existent
HIPPA protections.)
Mr. Kirby: Right. It has cured itself but here again, your honor, they were
not allowed to…they were not served with a 15 day notice which they
could have moved to quash and…course we are going to move to exclude
those records, but…
Judge: So what relief are you looking for or are you just making the court
aware? I’m making the court aware but I also want…
Judge: Okay, let’s go motion by motion. So we are still on the motion to
bring the evidence that they sent.
Mr. Kirby: Right. We’re still on the motion…I’m sorry. I keep going on at
the court that I’ve upset right now..
Judge: It’s okay. Well, no. It’s not that I’m upset. It’s just that I’m trying to
make sure that I’m staying in the order so that I don’t skip something.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. I just wanted to see evidence, maybe a copy of an
envelope that they sent to the Holms.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I don’t make copies of envelopes. It’s not our pattern
of practice. Maybe it’s foolish on my part but I’m not aware of any
attorney that make a xerox of every letter they make and then slide it in
the copier. Maybe that’s Mr. Kirby’s practice. That is not mind. It’s not
required by the rules.
Judge: That’s correct. It is not required.
Christian: He already admitted to having a certificate. So we’ll see.
Mr. Kirby: Well, we were just looking for any evidence that they might
have served the Holms with anything in this case. I guess my frustration
is, your honor, when I had first met the Holms and we were in trial last
Monday, they had not seen anything. Now whether it was provided to their
counsel of before, they did not have copies of anything. And one of the
things in going through with assisting them was to determine that they
were served with them. And we found that they were not served even
though the motions had been decided and the point of the motions was
moot now, they hadn’t been served with records of filing. That’s my
concern and I’m going to leave it at that.
Judge: Okay, but since then…since you were on board and the clerk put
you on the 5th I do believe…
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. I think so.
Judge: Is there anything that you know that you have not gotten?
Mr. Kirby: No, ma’am.
Judge: And you in turn have passed that along to Mr. and Mrs. Holm?
Mr. Kirby: I have passed that…everything that has come out of this court,
any kind of filings, order, whatnot unto the Holms.
Judge: So, we have I guess argued everything and I don’t know, Mr. Kirby,
if you are looking for a ruling from me on the motion to produce evidence
of service or again like you just said it is more of an informative situation
to the court and it appears that it’s going to work hand in hand with other
motions that you filed after the close of business yesterday.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. It is informative but I would want them to bring
those up, but if it’s going to work hand in hand with other motions that the
Holms have filed.
Christian: (very quiet) I would like to have it on record———————-
Judge: So, make sure I’ve got everything. All right, I have left then the pro
se, totally pro se motion to dismiss and amend a motion to dismiss that
was filed I believe on maybe the 6th right after the first hearing, that Mr.
and Mrs. Holm filed, the handwritten one that they filed and then the
second one had a lot of documentation filed behind it that you said earlier
we will just argue that all at one time.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Then I have a motion to dismiss filed by last night at 4:42:54pm
consisting of four pages, and after that at 5:47:52 pm a motion to suppress
testimony and records in laminae. That consists of 15 pages.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: So that’s just clicking down on my list as things appear in order, are
there any other motions pending that you are aware of?
Mr. Kirby: Not that I’m aware of.
Judge: State?
Mr. Schlenker: No ma’am.
Guardian: No ma’am.
Judge: Okay. So, we have the motion to dismiss that was filed last night, a
motion to suppress that was filed last night. Do you want to proceed with
those now or do you all want to take a little break for lunch and come
Mr. Kirby: It shouldn’t take 30 minutes to at least get one motion out of
the way.
Mr. Schlenker: I say keep going. Judge, and before we begin in regards for
the motion to dismiss for dependency, that is —————-than the
petitions that were filed by the parents and looking at rule 6 the state is
entitled to five days notice of this motion. It argues a variety of different
things and again, the state has not been provided an opportunity to prepare
for that motion and have ample time. It was filed at 4:42 yesterday and
again the counsel for the department did not see it until this morning.
Mr. Kirby: What rule are you…?
Mr. Schlenker: Rule six.
Judge: Okay. And since it was set after we were closed yesterday it was
not set for hearing by order because I didn’t see it until this morning to set
Mr. Kirby: I mean it addresses a very simple issue, your honor, that’s
documentary in nature and it’s of the record. So, it’s not like we’d be
introducing any evidence. The state shouldn’t need five days to prepare for
it. So, if the court so ordered, we could move on with it.
Judge: Well, I think that’s one of those if they object that they don’t have
the procedure that it is different of the body of and that they didn’t get five
days notice. I have to give five days.
****(But if it goes against the parents and they were denied their right to
suppress records in a quash, you overlook it. How is that fair? Everything
is for the state and their benefit.)
(Of Course….so this is a motion to dismiss due to LACK OF DUE
PROCESS….BECAUSE….of the issue that was brought up at the
beginning of this audio, that the judge NEVER went back to and diverted
to a new topic….now, we are back onto a motion speaking of those things
and we want to wait FIVE days to go over it….BECAUSE if we were to go
over it NOW you would HAVE TO GIVE OUR BABY BACK…..what does
OUR CHILD…Don’t want to bring this one up yet, do we?? And guess
what…..5 days later….YOU RECUSED YOURSELF rather than
RULING….and now 4 months later WE STILL HAVE NOT GONE OVER
Mr. Schlenker: And judge there is no requirement under the rules that
counsel has to work 24/7 in order to be ready for a trial. So, realistically
counsel has been provided for the department about 10 or 15 minutes to
look at this, and again, without having sufficient time to prepare for it
because it does reference a statute that I do not have a copy of in front of
me, I need more time than just here were go.
(THERE is NOTHING to look over. Facts are FACTS SCHLENKER….you
cannot possibly have any argument against the facts of NO DUE
PROCESS unless you drag this case out for many months and then plant
false evidence of some kind against us….)
Mr. Kirby: You talking about referencing the statute requiring a child
custody affidavit? If you don’t have time, look it up. It’s there on the
(It’s not that they do not have time….they do not want to FACE THE
Mr. Schlenker: You know while I appreciate Mr. Kirby’s ideas on how
long it’s going to take me to research, it is not for him to opine as to what I
should be entitled to do with regards to preparing for a motion. Obviously
he has taken a substantial amount of time in preparing all of these motions
as they have continued to flow in as of the last time we were here. If he
had known he was going to file this motion he could have filed it certainly
before at 4:40 last night.
Mr. Kirby: I guess you could set that out and not hear that today. If this
case goes any further then you could hear it then.
Judge: Well, it does appear from the face of what was filed last night it is
very, very different from the pro se filing of mom and dad. I’m sorry, Mr.
and Mrs. Holm. When they filed their first motion, their hand written
motion and their amended which appeared to be the handwritten motion.
So with it very different the substantive nature of it…
Christian: But, that’s been plenty of time on that one, right?
Mr. Kirby: On the pro se motion?
Judge: Yes. So, the motion to dismiss filed last night at 4:42 we are going
to have to set that for another hearing because the department has not had
five days notice.
(Oh, of course….so that way it gives you time to decide to recuse yourself
so that you dont have to make a ruling on that motion which would
Mr. Kirby: Contingent upon the outcome of that?
Judge: If that’s fine with you?
Mr. Kirby: That’s fine.
Judge: Now, as far as the pro se motion to dismiss…is that something that
needs to be argued now or later?
Mr. Kirby: I think Mr. Holm would like to argue that now.
Christian: Yeah, we would.
Judge: Okay. And that’s going to be a separate because it is from what I’m
reading very separate and distinct in what is within the one that you
assisted and prepared. Yours appears to be more of a procedural, legal,
here’s your statute argument. So with that being in mind, let me make
myself a note here. So the 4:42 motion…so we will set that for argument
by separate order. And the motion to dismiss filed, I believe, on Jan. 6th
and the amended motion as filed by Mr. and Mrs. Holm is the one that we
are here now going to hear argument. Mr. Schlenker, the department has
had ample notice on that one.
Mr. Schlenker: Yes Ma’am. I’m just trying to make sure that I can
———-my statutes…
Christian: I’m trying to make sure we have the right one here. I guess that
this motion is based under lack of evidence of child endangerment, and
under common law we are the manufacturers of our child. The child is our
product under law because we created our child under a Creator, and no
one else did, so we claim lack of jurisdiction, and we call——-on the life
salvage law of common law to retrieve our product, our property. And we
have a manufacturer’s statement of origin and not that we consider
him…uh, well, the law considers him as our property. And we demand for
him to be restored to us immediately without any further torture,
punishment, or coercion, interruption and involvement of the department
of human resources.. That’s all, your honor.
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, the reason why we are here today is for trial
which is to gather evidence with regards to whether dependency exists. In
some part the motion is premature. Additionally, common law in a great
many ways has been supplanted by statutory law, and the statute clearly
has been invoked in this case (Common Law, is CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW….THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!). This court clearly has
jurisdiction and a manufacturer’s statement of origin does not override the
statutory parts of this court (So, the statement that WE created OUR
CHILD WITH GOD does not OVERRIDE Man’s LAW….does everyone
get that?!) and the State of Alabama over a child who is found within its
jurisdiction (Notice he did not say found abused/or neglected) to ensure
the safety and welfare of that child. And again, that is the purpose of this
hearing. We understand that Mr. and Mrs. Holm do not agree with that,
but again, we are in the middle of trial for that very reason. That will be
ultimately the determination of the court, hopefully sometime today if not
tomorrow whether or not it meets the statutory definition of dependency at
this point in time. Then we will go from there. But again, otherwise this
court absolutely has jurisdiction which is what I think he kind of was
arguing also. Again, the case is not closed and so a lack of evidence is
(What are your facts and evidence that you have jurisdiction over our
family Schlenker??)
Judge: Anything further Mr. Holms?
Christian: Yes. I would like to state that there is nothing on record showing
the court and DHR have jurisdiction over our child. There is no social
security number, there is no birth certificate. There is nothing that is
claiming any other organization to have jurisdiction of our child. And if
there is then we did not consent of it and we would like to see the law that
DHR and/or courts has jurisdiction of our child now. That’s all.
Judge: And I believe Mr. Kirby as counsel that you can certainly give
advice as to what the jurisdictional law and provisions would be. Anything
further from the department?
will they steamroll us this way!!)
Mr. Schlenker: No
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Nothing, your honor.
Judge: At this juncture we have already started testimony. I do think the
motion to dismiss is premature or not ripe for adjudication because this
state does have the right to present their case in their entirety. (NO THEY
CASE LAW!!) What I’m going to do is just withhold ruling on it other than
for that purpose let the state proceed, and then of course Mr. and Mrs.
Holm will have the opportunity to renew that motion if you so choose to
Alright, so, now we are down to—- the last thing I am showing is a
suppressed testimony and records motion ———————-that was filed
last night at 5:47——————

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: